the finally median price y is about random in a range of x*0.99 ~ x*1.01, or more.suppose you are a honest witness, which give your feed price z in reasoanble, without any information about other's feed price and median price, the posibility of z close to y less than 0.01% is about 0.01%/0.02, which is far more less than 1%

This assumption is wrong. The median corresponds exactly to at least one witness-provided feed value. So for 25 witnesses the raw probability that the median is yours is 4%.

This raw probability is in reality increased significantly by at least two more aspects:* When a witness publishes a new feed value, his feed is the most recent and therefore more likely to be close to x than anyone else's.* Some witnesses publish a new feed only if that would change the median. (This is a simple optimization which is perfectly valid and acceptable if the feed is checked often.)

IMO if you publish a price only if it changes the median, and your price is likely to be close to the median, the conclusion is that your feed value will be chosen as the median quite often.

Please provide proof if you accuse someone of cheating. The mere fact that someone provides an accurate feed can hardly be taken as such.

Please clarify what is covered by the funding. The examples you list typically have their own worker proposals, and I'd expect these to cover any required BBF work as well. Or to put it differently - what if the mandate is granted but not funded?

That said, I'm of course aware that this is an important proposal and that a representative needs to be paid. I support this worker.

Edit: after re-reading I think the explanations provided are sufficient.

IMO all witnesses should provide feeds that are based on the same underlying principles. It is a good thing to define these principles in the form of BSIPs, and let the witnesses handle the details themselves.

For example, if some witnesses follow BSIP-42 and some don't, there is the danger that the median feed jumps back and forth between two values that are relatively far apart. This would probably disrupt the markets and would also increase the danger of a global settlement.

-How/when will bitUSD be revived? What does it take? Just the trust of people who lost a lot because of the GS?

It will be revived if either of these happen:

* supply drops to 0 (very unlikely)* BTS/USD price rises higher than settlement fund/supply * MCR* a number of people offer to put additional collateral into the pool, in exchange for a share of both debt and settlement fund, together they cover the full debt, and each resulting margin position has a collateral ratio higher than MCR

1 bitUSD is no longer worth 1 USD. Instead it is worth 19.55 BTS. If you're lucky you can sell it for more on the market. If you're lucky you can buy it for less from the market and settle for a profit.

If he had left BitUSD with no BSIP42, there will be no BlackSwan on BitUSD

To be fair, I think that with such a big downtrend a black swan on bitUSD might have happened even without BSIP-42.

Still, I think it is now proven that BSIP-42 increases the likelyhood of a black swan, due to margin calls not being eaten.

(I'm well aware that BSIP-42 can completely prevent a black swan if the witnesses keep the feed price "fake enough". This is cheating though, because it only hides the undercollaterlization from the blockchain. It will break the peg, and thus defeat the purpose of BSIP-42.)

In order to achieve the above objectives, our plan is: 1. Investigate visualization requirements. Questionnaires will be launched on multiple sources such as WeChat, Forum, and Telegram. The requirements of BTS users for data visualization will be widely collected and analyzed for their rationality (see “User Demand Analysis” for current collections).

I find it strange that you list this investigation as part of the tasks you're going to fulfill, yet at the same time you list all the tasks needed to fulfill these requirements *and* you're able to put a price tag on it.